Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 30316
Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations for Heavy and Extra Heavy Oils
Giambattista De Ghetto*, Francesco Paone, and Marco ViIla*, AGIP S.p.A.
* SPE Member
Copyright 1995, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Heavy 011 Symposium held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 19-21 June1995.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of Information contained In an abstract submitted by theauthor(s). Contents of the paper, as presented,
have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subjected to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are SUbject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Permission to copy Is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract shouid contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom
the paper Is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P,O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX75083-3836, U.S.A. (Facsimile 214-952-9435).
ABSTRACT: The paper evaluates the reliability of the most common empirical correlations used for determining reservoir fluid properties
whenever laboratory PVT data are not available: bubblepoint pressure, solution GaR, bubblepoint OFVF, isothermal compressibility, dead-oil
viscosity, gas-saturated oil viscosity and undersaturated oil viscosity,
The reliability has been evaluated against a set of about 65 heavy and extra-heavy oil samples, About 1200 measured data points have been
collected and investigated. All measured data points are reported in the paper, For all the correlations, the following statistical parameters have
been calculated: a) relative deviation between estimated and experimental values, b) average absolute percent error, c) standard deviation:
Oil samples have been divided in two different API gravity classes: extra-heavy oils for 0 API:S:; 10, heavy oils for 10< 0 API:S:; 22.3.
The best correlations for each class of API gravity have been evaluated for each oil-property,
The functional forms of the correlations that gave the best results for each oil property have been used for finding a better correlation with errors
reduced, on average, by 10%. In particular, for extra-heavy oils, since no correlations are available in literature (except for viscosity), a special
investigation has been performed and new equations are proposed.
647
INTRODUCTION
The calcuiation of reserves in an oil reservoir or the determination of
its performance and economics, requires a good knowledge of the
fluid's physical properties. Bubblepoint pressure, GaR, OFVF and
compressibility are of primary importance in material balance
calculation, whereas viscosity plays an important role in production
test interpretation and in well problem analysis. Ideally, these
properties are determined from laboratory stuclies on samples
collected from the bottom of the well bore or from the surface. Such
experimental data are however not always available because of one or
more of these reasons: a) samples collected are not reliable, b)
samples have not been taken because of cost saving, c) PVT analyses
are not available when needed. This situation often occurs in
production-test interpretation in exploration wells.
In such cases PVT properties must be determined by using empirical
derived correlations. Obviously the accuracy of such correlations is
critical for the above mentioned calculations and it is not often
known in advance.
Despite the great number of work performed in the past 50 years on
PVT correlations, each of them seems to be applicable with a good
References and illustrations at end of papaer
reliability only in a well-defined range of reservoir fluid
characteristics. This is due to the fact that each correlation has been
developed by using samples belonging to a restricted geographical
area, with similar fluid compositions and API gravity. In particular
for oils with gravity less than 22 0 API the literature is very poor and
nearly absent for oils with gravity less than 10 0 API.
This work is aimed at analysing the reliability of literature
correlations, listed in table I, relevant to heavy and
Agip's reservoir fluid samples, shown in table 2.
This will make it possible to evaluate the use of some correlations in
ranges of API gravity in which no correlations have been proposed
yet (except for viscosity): for oils with density lower than 10
0
API.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The following presents a review of the most known correlations
published in literature. The range of input data used by each Author
in developing his correlation are provided in tables 3 and 4.
2 PRESSURE-VOLUME.TEMPERATURE CORRELATIONS FOR HEAVY AND EXTRA HEAVY OILS SPE30316
In 1947 Standlng/ll2/31 published two correlations for determining, analyses of bottomhole fluid samples were available for the
respectively,. thebubblepoint pressure (Pb) and the oil-formation development of correlations. Only the correlation for Pb has been
volume factor (OfiVF) at bubblepoint, from known values of, considered in this work.
reservoir. temperature (Tr), solution gas-oil ratio (GOR) at bubble In 1988 Asgarpour, McLauchlin, Wong and Cheung
ll11
presented
point, oil gravity ('Yo) and gas gravity ('Yg). In all, 105 experimentally a new set of correlations to estimate Pb, OFVF and GOR (atand
determined data points on 22 different crude-oil/natural-gas mixtures below bubblepoint) as a function of 'Yg, 'Yo, Tr and The
from California were used. correlations were based on more than 310 different crude oil samples
In 1958 Lasater
/41
presented a new correlation for Pb. In all, 158 from Western Canada. Because the physical properties of each
experimentally measured bubblepoint pressures from 137 geological formation in Western Canada exhibited different
independent crude oil systems from Canada, western and mid- behaviour, It was necessary to. develop correlations for 3. different
continental U.S" and South America were used in his work. geological formations. Although the average errors of the correlations
In 1959 Chew and Connally/51 proposed a correlation to predict the are very low, the paper has not been considered In this work since
gas-saturated' oil viscosity (1101) as a function of dead.oil viscosity information about the geological formation of crude oil samples Were
not available, and because this information is not easy to gain on
(/-lod) and GOR. The correlation was developed from 457 crude oil field.
samples from Canada, USA and South America. The study showed
that at a fixed GOR, the relation between 11
0
1and the corresponding 11 In 1989 Labedl
/121
published a new set of equations for estimating
od is a straight line on logarithmic co-ordinates. OFVF, oil density at and below bubblepoint, and Co of the African
reservoir fluids, as a function of easily-measurable field data as first-
In 1975 Beggs and Roblnson
/61
published two new correlations for stage separator pressure and GOR, API, PI' and Tr. PVT datafor 128
calculating /lodand llot. The equations resulted from a study of 2533 samples were collected from Libya, Nigeria and Angola reservoirs.
viscosity measurements involving 600 different crude oil systems. An Only the compressibility correlation has been considered in this
accuracy of -0.64% for the dead-oil viscosity correlation was found stUdy.
when tested against the data used for its work. When tested against II .
93 cases from literature, the average error increased to 114,27%. The In 1990. Kartoatrnodjo . presented' new empirical correlations (or
Authors did not explain the reason for the large errors but simply predicting OFVF, Pb, llod, /lol, 110 and Co asa function of
warned that the extrapolation outside the range of the data used to measurable parameters such as Tr, separator gas gravity (GGPsp),
develop the correlation should be done. with care. API and GOR. A total of about 1400 different samples were used to
develop the correlations. Most of them were extracted byPVT
In 1977 Vasquez and Beggs/7/ presented correlations for predicting reports from South East Asia, California and Alaska and a reason.able
GORand OFVF of a gas-saturated crude oil, as a function of crude group from literature. The new correlations were developed using the
oil API gravity, 'Yg, reservoir temperature and pressure (Pr). In total, functional form ofthe previously published ones which gavethe best
. 6004 data points were use", distributed into two groups (less than 30 estimate. The Author also presented a correlation to .convert OFVF
oAPI and greater than 30 0 API) because ofvarilltions in the voilltility lIOd GOR from differentilll to flash liberation process at the separator
of crude oil. The Authors found 'Yg to be a strong correlllting condition. The OFVF, GOR .1Ind Pbcorrelatlons were developed
pllrameter in the development of the GOR correlation. Because 'Yg is using both f1l1sh vllporlsation data and differentilll vllporislltiondatll,
dependent on the conditions under which theglls is separated from (the latter converted to f1l1sh using tile above mentioned conversion
oil, a correlation to normalise 'Yg to a separation pressure of 114.7 factor). KlIrtoatmodjostated that these correlations are applicable to a
psia was also developed by the Authors and tested agllinst 124 data flash process only. Applying these equations to a differentilll process
points from 27 different fluids, Vasquez and Beggs' also investigated might lelld to errors of up to 20%.
the viscosity (f.lo) and the isothermal compressibility (Co) of under In 1990 Majeed, Kattan arid SaIman
/141
proposed a newgenetal
saturllted oils. using 4486 data points for the Co correlation lind 3593 corre1lltion for estimating /l0 liS 1I function of PI', Pb, 1101, GOR and
data points for the 110 correlation. API. The correlation was developed using 253 experimentally
In 1980 GIaso
/81
presented correlations for estimating Pb, OFVF find determined oil viscosity values on 41 different oil samples from
llod, as a function of Tr, total surface gas grllvity, GOR and API North Afrlcll and Middle-East oil reservoirs. The correlation is
gravity. Because the first two correlations were developed using datll derived from plotting (Pr-Pb) VS(/loll0l) on 1I 10g,.log pllper. The
from 45 oil samples with parafflnicities equivalentto North Sea oils, plot shown a of strllig\1.t lines of a constant slope whose
an adjustment to the API gravity term was suggested for using the interpepts could be represerted as a function of API lind GOR.
correllltions with oilsofa different compositional nature, Olaso 1I1so In 1990 McCain Jr. and Creeger
llSI
devel,oped an
provided a method for correcting the predicted Pbfor the presence of empirical equation to estimllte stock-tank GOR liS a function .of
C02, N2 and H2S in the totlll surface gllSes. The correlation for /lod separator pressure lind temperature (Psp, Tsp), API lind G(}Psp. The
was developed from data obtained from 26 crude 011 samples! correlation was obtained using a logarithmic model on a totlll of 301
In 1988 Egbogah and ,}acW
91
proposed two different correlations for blllck oilsampll)s. The solution GOR, obtllined by lidding the stock-
estimating /lod, The first one was a modified Beggs and Robinson tank GOR from equlltion to the field-determined separator GOR, has
correllltion obtained by using 394 011 systems from Illboratories of been affected by an average error of less than 3%.
AGAT EngIneering, Ltd. The second one introduced a new pammeter In 1992 Labedj/161 published a new set of correIlItlons to predict /lod,
to estimate the llod: the pour point temperature (Tp) which is, by /lol and 110. The data-bank for the development of correlations
definition, the lowest temperature at which the oil is observed to consisted of lIbout one hundred Illboratory lInalyses, the
flow. Because Tp seemed to be related to crude oil paraffin content (it fluids of the entire producing reservoirs in Libya. Each equation
increases with the pamffin conten!), the Authors believed that developed is a function of easily"obtainable dlltll, such as API,Pr and
important chemical compositional lIspects of crude 011 could be Tr. In particulllr, with regard to the 1101 correilltion, all equations
considered in the viscosity correlation by introdUcing this parameter. previously published correlate /lol to llod lind GOR In this study /lol
The average error of the equation with Tp was slightly lower thlln the is a direct function of llod, API and PI', parameters more easily-'
modified Beggs lind Robinson correlation (-4,3% vs. -5.13%). Since measurllble in the field than GOR. Labedi also publishedll
Tp is not an easlly-mellsurable pllrameter on field the latter relationship between differential and flash API. Even if the API used
correlation has not been investigated in this study. in all of the oil viscosity correlations developed in this study WllS
In 1988 Marhoun
/lOI
published empirical correlations for estimllting obtained by flashing the fluid sample to the atmospheric pressure,
Pb, OFVF lit bubblepoint and totlll OFVF for the Middle East crude which can be easily done in the field by flashing the well directly to
oils, as 1I function of Tr, 'Yg, GOR. and API. A total of 69 PVT the stock-tank, this reilltion makes it possible to. utiliSe the viscosity
648
SPE 30316 G. DE GHETI'O, F. PAONE, M. VILLA 3
(3)
(2)
RESULTS OF RELIABILITV ANALYSIS PERFORMED ON AGiP'S SAMPLES
Li:,[EI - Em]2
SD =,,-==.J.:=..__---=:....
N-I
The correlation providing the smallest Em value was judged to be the
best. When equal Em was found for more correlations, the lowest
standard deviation value defined the best one. Table 6 provides the
best results obtained from the statistical analysis, for the different
parameters estimated, for the two API gravity classes.
Below is a discussion of the results obtained for each property
estimated.
in the past few years, oil companies have become increasingly
interested in reservoirs with the extra-heavy oils/
35
/
37
/,
there are no correlations in literature which cover the range of oils
with 0 API S; 10, except for viscosity.
The reliability of each correlation and for each parameter was
therefore tested for each API gravity class. No analyses were made
for the whole group because it is plausible that samples belonging to
the same class are physically and chemically more comparable than
samples from different classes,
The reliability study was carried out using graphic and statistical
instruments. Calculated (Ci) vs. measured (Mi) - value diagrams were
created for each parameter studied in order to have a clear and
immediate view of the behaviour of each correlation. For reasons of
space, not all the calculated-value vs. measured-value graphs, relative
to each correlation, have been included in this paper. Instead, it was
decided to show a single diagram which gathers the best results
obtained for individual classes of oil . The diagrams for each property
estimated are shown in figures 1,3,5,7,9,11,13 and 14.
The qualitative analysis carried out by means of diagrams was
accompanied by a statistical analysis, of which the starting point was
therelative deviation between estimated and experimental value (Ei),
thus defined:
(1)
After having calculated the Ei for all the available samples, results
were subjected to a statistical analysis calculating the average
arithmetical value (Em) of the Ei and their standard deviation (SD),
i.e., the dispersion ofthe Ei around their average value Em' using the
following equations:

m N
All the results are discussed with reference to Table 6 and to figures
1,3,5,7,9, II, 13 and 14.
Bubblepoint pressure
Standing's correlationIl/
2
/
3
/ has given the best results with average
errors of 9.1% for extra-heavy oils and 15.1% for heavy oils.
Solutio" gas-oil ratio
The best results are provided by the Standing and Vasquez-Beggs
correlations with errors of 13.7% for extra-heavy oils and 25.7% for
heavy oils.
Oil formatio" volume factor at bubhlepoint
Of the seven properties analysed, this one was estimated in the best
way. The highest errors did not exceed 1.5%. Vasquez-Beggs's
correlatt.17? gave errors of less than half of those indicated by the
Authors .
[sot/,ermal compressibility
The estimation errors range from 25.5% for heavy oils to 38,7 for
extra-heavy oils. Vasquez-Beggs's correlation gave the best
performance for the both classes,
Dead-oil viscosity
The estimation of this property exhibited the highest error, the lowest
errors being greater than 30%. The errors are very high, especially
649
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS ON LITERATURE CORRELATIONS
This work analyses the most well-known correlations described in
literature for estimating PVT properties such as bubblepoint pressure,
oil formation volume factor and solution gas-oil ratio at bUbblepoint,
dead-oil viscosity, gas-saturated oil viscosity, under saturated oil
viscosity and isothermal compressibility. It does not however include'
those correlations which require, as input data, parameters which are
not easily measurable on field or not obtainable from PVT reports.
Table I shows schematically the Authors and the relative correlations
considered for each property examined,
Starting exclusively with the PVT studies carried out over the last 30
years on Agip oils, a selection was made excluding those lacking all
the input data necessary to use PVT correlations. In this way, a very
heterogeneous sample of 63 crude oils was Set up, representative of
diverse reservoir conditions, in order to ensure that the conclusions
obtained from this analysis would be generally valid and have an
extensive applicability to wide range of operative situations.
The 63 oils come from the Mediterranean Basin, Africa and the
Persian Gulf. Table 2 lists the range of input and output parameters of
all Agip's oil samples While Table 5 reports the experimentally-
measured PVT data involved in the present study (about 1200 data
points).
Tables 3 and 4 list the range of input and output parameters upon
which each Author based the development of his correlation
(Author's defined range).
The density of an oil is a fundamental characteristic as it reflects its
chemical composition, on which all the fluid's main properties
depend. For this reason, the API gravity was chosen in this study
among all the different parameters used for classifying oils; therefore
Agip's oil sample was divided into 2 different classes of API gravity
as follows:
extra-heavy oils 0 API S; 10
heavy oils 10< 0 API S; 22.3
The second class correspond to a standard classification of
oils/
30
/
311
0n the basis of the API gravity; the extremes of the ranges
which identify the class can vary as there is no universally recognised
classification. Even if the class of "extra heavy oils" does not
compare in the standard classifications,. in this study it was decided to
analyse separately oils with API < 10 mainly for the following
reasons:
variations in the properties of crudes depend chiefly on the
presence of the most heavy hydrocarbons
126127
/:18/39/40/
data from the samples that are not flashed to the atmospheric
pressure, but differentially liberated. The new correlations can be
applied to other geographical areas such as the Middle East, the
North Sea and some parts of North and South America, but they
should be used within the limit of input data; in particular they
should not be extrapolated for crudes of less than 32 API. In this
study it was decided to extent the Labedi's correlations to heavy and
extra heavy oils. This was made because no literature correlations are
available for oils with API < 14.4 (see tables 3 and 4), except for
dead-oil viscosity (Egbogah-Jack correlation). For this reason all the
analysed correlations were applied over the range of input data
reported by the Author's,
In 1993 Petrosky and Farshad/
17
/ presented new empirical PVT
correlations for estimating Pb, GOR, OFVF and Co, as a function of
commonly available field data. Atotal of 81 laboratory pvr analysis,
made on crude oils extracted from reservoirs offshore Texas and
Louisiana were used to develop the correlations, Authors found that
their correlations could predict the PVT properties with average
absolute errors ranging from 0,64% for OFVF to 6.66% for Co. The
correlations were developed specifically for Gulf of Mexico crude
oils but Authors said that the same equations could be used in other
regions of the world. Only the compressibility correlation has been
considered in this work.
4 PRESSURE-VOLUME-TEMPERATURE CORRELAnONS FOR HEAVY AND EXTRA HEAVY OILS SPE 30316
with regard to the class of heavy oils. This behaviour is justifiable
bearing in mind that the correlations estimate this property with only
two input variables: 0 API and reservoir temperature. The correct
measurement of this property is difficult to achieve even in the
laboratory.
Gas.sahtrated oil viscosity
The average errors of the best correlations range between 14% and
16%. The best results were provided by Kartoatmodjo's correlations,
with Nfprs comparable with those found by the Author in his own
work .
Figure 9 shows the distribution of the points calculated with the beSt
correlations where the input varlables (dead-oil viscosity and solution
ratio) are measured values obtained from PVT reports.
Figure 14 shows the results of the same corr('llations where the
Calculated value was used as input data of the' dead-oil viscosity.
Noteworthy is the increase in dispersions ofthe points around the
bisector which corresponds to an average error increase of morethlln
15 percentage points. The difference is due to the fact that by
including a calculated rather than a measured input in an equation,
the estimation error of the equation in some way combines with that
made on the calculated input even if the latter has been calculated
with the best correlation. The greater the error on this inpllt,the
greater the correlation error. Since the correlations which estimate the
viscosity values at different pressures are all the
lower the estimation error of the dead-oil viscosity, the better the
estimation ofthe gas-saturated oil viscosity. The same applies to the
correlations. relative to the undersaturated oil viscosity which have
the gas-saturated oll viscosity among the inputs. This proves' the
importance of correctly determining the dead-oil viscosity, which on
the other hand, is the property calculated in the worst way. The
observations made can be naturally and easily extended to al1 the
other properties; in fact, a quantity estimated by using measured input
variables will undoubtedly be more reliable than one estimated with
calculated inputs.
Undersaturated oil viscosity
The best correlations showed a maximum error of 12.3% (Labedi,
extra-heavy oils). Note that Labedi'scorrelation
/16
/which had in fact
been gauged with oils with API >32 (Tab. 4), showedexcel1ent
results even for the other classes of oil. It should also be pointed out
that the error in estimating the viscosity normally beCOmes smaller
and smal1er as we go from atmospheric pressure viscosity to reservoir
pressure viscosity. It is likely that the input variables which estimate
the reservoir oil viscosity (bubble point pressure, reservoir pressure
and GOR), characterise the phenomenon better than the inputs of the
dead-oil viscosity COAPI and reservoir temperature).
DEVELOPMENT OF MODIFIED CORRELATIONS
The results obtained from the above-explained reliability analysis
shows that, except for the OFVF correlation, the average errors in
determining PVT properties are still high, especially.when oils are
beyond the Author's defined range. For this reason the need to
improve the reliability of the literature correlations has been
recognised.
The functional forms of the correlations that in the previous
reliability analysis on Agip's samples gave the best results, for each
PVT property, have been used as models for a best-fit activity aimed
at improving the accuracy of literature correlations in predicting PVT
properties for typical Agip's oils.
Maintaining the same Junctional pattern of the starting model, the
numerical coefficients of the different equations were re-calculated
by applying multiple, linear and non-linear regressions by means of
the SAS program which carries out these regression analyses using
the minimum squared m(lthod.
The modified were obtained for (lach class ofd(lnsity into
which the Agip's oil sample was divided. In fact oils from the same
class are more comparable than oils from different classes, and then
the availability of two different equations. one for each class, to
estimate the same property, is certainly more reliable than a single
correlation for all the sample. For this reason, new equations were
proposed only for each API gravity class and not for all the group of
Agip'soils. '
In order to test the reliability of the modified,equations, the same
grap!\ic-statistical .instruments as those in the previous stpdy were
used. The results obtained are shown in Table 7 and in fig. 2, 4, 6,8,
10, and 12, prepared in the same way as those for the analysis on the
litlJrature equations, in order to be able to compare the two sets of
graphs, more adequately. In some cases, it was necessary to eliminate
some samples from the class being analysed in order to make the
regression more reliable; however, the exclusions never exceeded 5%
of the entire group. The study did not take into consideration the
cOt1:(llations which estimate the oil formation volume factor at bubble
point .as the estimation of t'1is property carried out using the
equations chosen(rom literature was felt to be very satisfactory..
Appendix Ashows the analytical form o( the new correlations.
RESUJ"TS OF RELIAPIl,lTY ANALYSIS Pf;RFORMED ON MODIFIED
CORRELATIONS.
The results of Tab. '7 obtained for the different properties are shown
below, and are Compared with those of Table 6.
Bubblepoint pressure
The starting models used for improving the estimate of this property
was Standing's correlations for the both classes of oils. The new
correlations reduced the estimation errors of 4.9 percentage points
(see Tab. 6 and 7) for the class of heavy oils. Regression in the class
of extra-heavy oils, having given results worse than the starting
model, ,is not shown,. Standing's correlation was ,considered
slJf,ficiently reliable, for estimating oils' bubblepoint pressure with
oAPI < 10. Comparing diagrams in fig. I and 2 it Can be seen that
the most significant improvement in the new correlation is in the
pressure range below 2000 psia.
In order to allow an easy interpretation of the results obtained with
the reliability.studies performed in this work, the best results of the
statistical analyses, are compared in a histogram for each PVT
property (see fig.15 to 20).
Each histogram shows the value of the most important statistical
parameter (Em' average absolute error) for the two classes of oil' into
which the sample was divided.
Solution gas-oil ratio
The equl;ltions used ,as model were those of Standing for extra-heavy
oils and for heavy oils. The regression of Vasquez-
Beggs' equation was carried out keeping fixed the equation of the
'Ygcorr. provided by the Authors; this was done every time the starting
model was a Vasquez-Beggs correlation. The new equations redl1ced
the estimation error from a minimum of 7.,2 to a maximum of 8.7
percentage points. The comparison between the diagrams in fig.3 and
4 shows that the most obvious improvements were in the GOR range
beJow2?0 scf/STB.
l,vothermal compressibility
The mode] to regress was Vasquez-Beggs' correlation for both the
classes of oils. This set of new equations provided the most
significant improvements. Theerror decre.ased from a minimum Of
10 to a maximum of 30 percentage points for extra-heavy oils..
Comparing the diagrams in fig.5 and 6 it can seen that the greatest
improvements were obtained for compressibility between 5 and I0 x
10"6 psia" I.
Dead-oil viscosity
The models chosen was' Egbogah-Jack's correlation for the both
classes. The dead-oil viscosity is the most critical property to estimate
with empirical' equations. In fact, although' the errors dropped down
to 13 percentage points with, (he new, equations (extra heavy oils),
values higherthan30% (heavy oils), are still present. On the other
hand, the viscosity, not being a state property also depends on the
behaviour of the fluid. All the correlations assume that the fluid can
be considered Newtonian, but this is not always true, especially
where high viscosity are concerned. To attempt to estimate a quantity
650
SPE 30316 G. DE GHETTO, F. PAONE, M. VILLA 5
of this kind using equations which only use two input variables (0API
and reservoir temperature) becomes even more difficult. In any case,
not even laboratory measurements of viscosjty can be considered
completely reliable: in fact, particularly in the range of high viscosity,
differences of 10% between .two measurements taken on the same
sample by two different equipment, gauged in the same way, are
normal. The diagrams in figures 7 and 8 compare the trend between
the old and the new equations. They reveal that the most significant
improvements are to be found in the range of viscosity greater than
10cp.
Gas-saturated oil viscosity
The starting model for the regression was Kartoatmodjo's correlation
for the both classes. For the Kartoatmodjo's correlation, the multiple
nonlinear regression was carried out by keeping the equation
supplied by the Author fixed for the input variable ygcorr. This
procedure was also followed for the other properties whenever the
starting model was one of Kartoatmodjo's equations. The regression
reduced the estimation error from a minimum of 2.1 (extra heavy
oils) to a maximum of 403 (heavy oils) percentage points (see Tables
6 and 7). Diagrams in fig. 9 and 10 show that the new correlations
improve the estimate in the range between 10 and J00 cpo
Undersaturated oil Vi.fcosity
The models to regress were Labedi's correlation for extra heavy oils
and Kartoatmodjo's correlation for heavy oils. The new equations
brought the maximum estimation error to 6% (Tab. 7). The diagrams
in fig. 1I and 12, which compare the trend of the old and new
equations, show that the improvements are distributed along the
entire viscosity range.
CONCLUSIONS
The reliability analysis of the literature PVT correlations carried
out on 63 oil samples from Mediterranean Basin, Africa and
Persian Gulf, gave the best results for the estimate of the OFVF,
with maximum errors lower than 1.5%. The estimates of Pb, !lol
and ~ l O exhibited maximum errors of about 15%, 16% and 12%
respectively. The GOR, Co and !lod estimates were less precise:
the maximum errors were about 26%, 39% and 42% respectively.
The new PYT correlations proposed in the paper gave errors
lower, on average, than 10 percentage points when compared with
the best literature correlation for each PVT property. In particular,
for the isothermal compressibility of extra-heavy oils, the new
correlation revealed an error lower than 30 percentage points.
It is believed that the new correlations are sufficiently extendible
as they were obtained on a very heterogeneous sample of oils.
Adeep literature review has shown that, except for viscosity, there
are no PVT correlations for extra-heavy oils (0API :s; 10). The
proposed new equations for such oils provide average error of
6.5% for solution GOR, 8.5% for isothermal compressibility,
17.4% for dead-oil viscosity, 12.6% for gas-saturated oil viscosity
and 4% for undersaturated oil viscosity.
A further investigation of the new modified correlations,
performed on a new different group of oil samples (from literature
and Agip's reports), has shown that the results obtained with the
new equations have a general validity. This analysis involved only
the viscosity correlation because of lack of literature data about
the estimation of the others PVT properties.
FURTHER INVESTIGATtON ON THE NEW MODIFIED CORRELATION
THAT ESTIMATE THE VISCOSITY
The new modified correlations have been obtained analysing Agip's
oils sample. For a more general validity of the results obtained in the
previous analysis, it was decided to test the new equations using a
new group of oils collected from literature. A deep literature review
has shown that the Author's are usually reluctant to pUblish the oil
data bank used for testing their correlations. For this reason it was
possible to collect from literature only 10 oil samples, with data
available for the only viscosity correlation analysis. To make more
representative the results of this analysis, a group of 45 oils samples,
collected from the Agip's viscosity measurements reports, has been
added to the oils from literature. In this wayan heterogeneous sample
of 55 oils has been obtained. The complete data bank is given in
Table 8. Since the extra heavy oils are only 5, results obtained in this
class have to be considered not as representatives as those of the
heavy oils class (50 samples). The results of the statistical analysis,
performed on this sample using the same statistical index as before,
are given in Table 9. Comparing this results with those listed in Table
7 and, secondly, Table 6, we can say that:
Dead 011 viscosity : the Em increased by about 9 percentage
points for extra heavy oils and decreased by 2.4 points for heavy
oils. The result for the heavy oils is very good and confirm the
general validity of the new corresponding correlation. For the
extra heavy oils the poor number of samples makes the results
less representatives. However results by Table 9 for extra heavy
oils are better than the corresponding by Table 6, relatives to the
best literature correlations.
Saturated oil viscosity: Em increased by 7,2 percentage points
for extra heavy oils and by 8.7 points for heavy oils.
Undersaturated oil viscosity : an increase of 1.9 percentage
points for the Em in the class of extra heavy and a decrease of OJ
points in the class of heavy oils confirm the general validity of
the new corresponding correlations.
NOMENCLATURE
API
Ci
Co
Ei
Em,AAE
GOR, Rs, Rtot
Log
Ln
Mi
N
OFYF, Bo, Bofb
Pb
Pr, P
Psp
Rst
Rsp
S.D
Tr, T
Tp
Tsp
YC02
YH2S
YN2
yg, GG(av)
ygcorr, GGcorr
651
Stock-tank oil gravity, API
Calculated value
Isothermal compressibility of undersatutated oil,
psia-
I
Relative deviation between estimated and
experimental value, %
Average absolute error, %
Solution gas-oil ratio from flash'test, scf/STB.
Logarithm on base 10
Natural logarithm
Experimental value
Number of data points
Bubblepoint oil formation volume factor.
bbl/STB
Bubblepoint pressure, psia.
Reservoir pressure, psia.
Separator pressure, psia.
Stock-tank gas-oil ratio, scf/STB.
Separator gas-oil ratio, scf/STB.
Standard deviation
Reservoir temperature, OF.
Poor point temperature, OF
Separator temperature, OF.
Mole fraction of C02 in total surface gases, %
mol: Glaso's/4/ bubblepoint correlation.
Mole fraction of H2S in total surface gases, %
mol: G1aso's/4/ bubblepoint correlation.
Mole fraction of N2 in total surface gases, %
mol: Glaso's/4/ bubblepoint correlation
Average specific gravity of total surface gases.
Gas Specific gravity at separator pressure of
114.7 psia.
6 PRESSURE-VOLUME-TEMPERATURE CORRELATIONS FOR HEAVY AND EXTRA HEAVY OILS SPE 30316
ygPsp, GG(Psp),ysp Gas Specific gravity at any separator pressure.
yo, yost Stock-tank 011 specific gravity.
Vo Unqersalurated oil viscosity, cp.
!-lod, Vod Dead-oil or gas-free oil viscosity, cp..
!-lol, Vol Gas-saturated oil viscosity, cp.
81 FACTORS
'( 141.5) =g/cm
3
131.5+ API ,
Nm
3
/m
3
x 5.5519 = scf/STB
KPa x 0.14504= psia
psia - 14.7 = psig
C x 1.8 +32 =OF
KPa -Ix 6.894757 = psia -I
cp x 1,0 = mPa x s.
bbl x 0: 1589873 = m
3
REFERENCES,
Standing MR: "Volumetric and Phase Behaviour of Oil Field
Hydrocarbon System", SPE-A.IMB, Ninth Printing(1981).
2 Standing M.B.: "Oil-System Correlations" PetrQl!Jwn Pro,d"ction
HandhQok, Frick 1'.C.(ed.), SPE, Richardson, TX (1962) Vol. 2,
Cap 19.
3 Standing M.B.: "A Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlation for
Mixtures of California Oils and Gases," Drill & Prod, Prac:t., API
(1947), pp 275-87.
4 Lasater J,A.: "Bubble Point Pressure Correlation," Transaction
AIME (1958) 21.3, pp 379-81.
5 Chew J. & Connally C.A.:i'A Viscosity Correlation for Gas-
Saturatecl Crude Oils" Transactions AIMS, (1959) Vol. 216, pp
23-25. ,
6 Beggs RD. & Robinson J.R.:"Bstimating the Viscosity of Crude
Oil Systems" JPT, (September 1975), pp 1140-41.
7 Vasquez M.E. & Beggs H,D::"Correlations for Fluid Physical
Property Prediction," SPE 6719, (1977).
8 Glaso 0,: "Generalised Pressure-Volume-Temperature
Correlations" JPT (May 1980), pp 785-95.
9 Egbogah E.O. & Jack T.Ng: "An Improved Temperature-
Correlation for Crude Oil Systems," Journal of Petroleum Sc,ence
and Engineering,S (1990), pp 197-200.
10 AI-Marhoun M.A.: "PVT Correlations for Middle East Crude
Oils," JPT (May 1988), pp 650-66.
II Asgapur S., McLauchlin L., Wong D., Cheung V,: "Pressure-
Volume-Temperature Correlations for Western Canadian Gases
and oils" Petroleum Society of CIM, paper No 88-39-62 (1988),
pp 62-1/62-24.
12 Labedi R: "Use of Production Data to Estimate Volume Factor,
Density and Compressibility of Reservoir Fluids," Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering, 4 (1990), pp 375-90.
13 Kartoatmodjo T. "New Correlations for Estimating Hydrocarbon
Liquid Properties" (Thesis), The University of Tulsa, The
Graduate School, (1990)
14 Majeed G.H.A., Kallan R.Rand Salman N.H.: "New correlation
for estimating the viscosity of under saturated crude oils", Journal
of Canadian Petroleum Technology, (May-June 1990), Vol 29,
No.3, pp 80-85.
15 Rollins J.B., McCain W.DJr., Creeger J.T.: "Estimation of
SOlution GORof Black Oils", JPT (January 1990), pp 92-94.
16 Labedl R "Improved correlations for predicting the viscosity of
light crudes", Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 8
(1992), pp 221-234.
17 Petrosky G.B. Jr., Farshad F,F.: "Pressure-Volume-Temperature
Correlations for Gulf of Mexico Crude Oils," SPB 26644, (1993),
pp 395-406.
18 Beal C.: "The Viscosity of Air, Water, Natural Gas, Crude Oil and
Its Associated Gases at Oil. Field Temperatures and Pressures," Oil
and Gas Property Evaluation and Reserve Estimates, Reprint
Series, SPE, Richardson, TX, (1970).
19 Siotle ill Frick T.C.: "Petroleum Production Handbook" SPE-
AIME, (1962), Vol 2.
20 Calhoun J.e. Ir: "Fundamental of Reservoir Engineering,"
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK (1947) 35.
21 Trube A.S.: "Compressibility, of Under saturated Hydrocarbon
Reservoir Fluids," Transaction AIMB (1957) 210, pp341-44.
22 Majeed G.H.A. & Salman N.H.: "An empirical Correlation for Oil
FVF Prediction," Joamal of Petroleum Technology.
23 Obomanu DA & Okpobori GA: "Correlating the PVT
Properties of Nigerian Crudes," Transaction ASME (987) Vol
109, pp 214-16.
24 Ali J.K.: "Evaluation of Correlation for Estimating the Viscosity
of Hydrocarbon. Fluids," Jo/lmal of Petroleum Science and
Engineeting, 5 (1991), pp 351-69.
25 Sutton RP. and Farshad F.: "Evaluation of Empirically Derived
PVT Properties for Gulf of Mexico Crude Oils," SPB Reser:voir
Engineering, (February 1990), pp 79-86.
26 Callegari A., De Ghetto G.:"Studio di Affidabilita di Correlazioni
per la Stima delle Proprieta di Oli di Giacimento," Agip (internal
report), (Gennaio 1992).
27 Lang KoR., Donohue D.AT., P.H.D., J.D" Senior Series
Editor:"PE 406-PetroleumEngineering IHRDC E and P Video
Library" edizione in Lingua Italiana a cura di G.Fiammengo
(LACH) e ADFO.M.R
28 Davis J,C.:"Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology", JoIln Wiley
& Sons, New Yark (1973), pp 54-127
29 Spiegel: "Statistics", Coli ana Schaum, (May 1976).
30 Chierici G.t.; Ciucci G,M., Sclocchi Vertical
Flow in Oils Wells-Prediction of pressure Drop," JPT (August
1974), pp 927-38, Transaction AIMS, 257. .
3rChierici G.L.:"Principi di Ingegnerla deiOiacimenti Petroliferi,"
Vol I, Agip-S.P.A, (settembreI 99l).
32 Paone F.: "Studio di Affidabilita delle Correlazioni che Stimano Ie
Praprietadegli Oli di Giacimento", Tesidi Laurea in Ingegneria
Minerarla, Universita degli Studi di Bologna, (13 ottobre 1993).
33 Closmann PJ., Seba R.D.: "A correlation of viscosity and
molecular weight," The Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, (July-August 1990), Vol. 29, No.4, pp 115-116.
34 McCain W.D. Jr., "Reservoir-fluid property correlations-State of
the Art," SPE Reservoir Engineering, (May 1991), pp 266-272.
35 PUllagunta V.R., Miadonye A, B. Singh : "Simple .concept
predicts viscosity of heavy oil and bitumen," Oil & Gas Journal
(Mar. I, 1993), pp 71-73.
36 AI-Blehed M.S., Sayyouh M.H., Desouky S.M.: "API Gravity and
Viscosity Determine. Crude Oil Sulphur Concentration,"
Petroleum Engineer International, (June 1993), pp 56-60.
37 Singh B., Miadonye A, Puttagunta V.R.: "Heavy oil viscosity
range from one test," Hydrbcarbon Processing, (August 1993), pp
157-162.
38 McCain W,D. Jr.: "Chemical Composition Determines Behaviour
of Reservoir Fluids," Petroleum Engineer International, (October
1993), pp 18-25,
39 McCain W.D. Jr.: "Black Oils and Volatile Oils-What's the
Difference?" Petroleum Engineer Intemational, (November 1993),
pp 24-27.
652
SPE 30316 G. DE GHElTO, F, PAONE, M, VILLA 7
(A - 10)
Heavy oils: Modified Kartoatmodjo's correlation
= 0.9886, ll
o
l +0,002763' (p - Pb),
-( -0,01153' +0,0316, (A - II)
where
YI?COI'r = YI?Prp '[1 + 0.1595, API 0.4078 '(TIP r0.2466, WI? ( P.rp J]
, '114,7
Heavy oils: Modified Kartoatrnodjo'scorreJation
2
!-tol =-0,6311+1.078F-O.003653P (A-9)
where
F = (0.2478+ 0.6114 .10-0.000845' Rs), +0.5158 Y)
Y = 10-0.00081, Rs
[
0.4078 ( )- 0.2466 (P
sp
)]
Yl?corr=YI?Prp' 1+0.1595API . TIp !.AII? --
, '114,7
6-Undersaturated oil viscosity:
Extra-heavy oils: Modified Labedi's correlation
= [10-
2
.
19
. ,PbO,3132]]
Pb 10,0099' API
2- Solution GOR:
Extra-heavy oils: Modified Standing's correlation
(
Pb I (O,OI69'API-O,00156'T))1.1128
Rs =Y . --, (A - 2)
g 10.7025
Heavy oils: Modified Vasquez-Beggs correlation
1.2057
Rs= Ygcorr,Pb ,10
1O
.
9267
,API/(T+460) (A-3)
56.434
where
YI?corr = YI?PSP' [I +0.59t2' APT T.rp 'wI? (I }0-4]
3-Isothermal CompressiblIity:
Extra-heavy oils: Modified Vasquez-Beggs correlation
- 889,6+ 3, 1374, Rs+ 20, Tg - 627,3' YgcolT -81.4476 API (A _4)
Co = -----------:;----""''''''-----
Pg .10
5
t-Bubblepoint Pressure:
Heavy oils: Modified Standing's correlation
[
0.7885
Y
R
g
S
100,0020'T
Pb = 15.7286, --..,...,-,.,....,..,-::- (A - 1)
I00,0 I42,API
APPENDIX A - MODIFIED CORRELATIONS
40 McCain W.O. Jr.. Bridges B.: "Volatile oils and Retrograde
Gases-What's the Difference?" Petroleum Engineer International,
(January 1994), pp 35-36,
= 2,3945+0,8927'F+O,001567'F
2
(A - 8)
where
(
1 1
-0,000845.RS) (0.5798+0.3432'y)
F= -0.0335+ .0785, 0 '!-tod
====================
y = 10-0,00081, Rs
YI?corr = YI?Prp '[I + 0, 1595, API 0.4078 , (T
rp
r0,2466 , [..<II? ( P
sp
)]
, '114,7
where
[ (
Poll' ) -4]
YI?COl'r = YI?PSP' 1+ 0.5912 API . T,rp . LOI? 114.7 10
Heavy oils: Modified Vasquez-Beggs correlation
-2841.8 +2, 9646 Rs+ 25.5439' Tg -1230.5 YgeOff +41.91 API
Co =-----------:;-----"':.::..:...---
Pg'10
5
(A - 5)
where
[ (
P.w J -4]
YI?COl'r = YI?Psp' 1+ 0,5912, API T.rp . UII? 114.7 10
4-Dead-oil viscosity
Extra-heavy oils: Modified Egbogah-.Tack's correlation
log .Iog(rl od + I) = I. 90296 - 0.012619 API - 0. 61748, log(Tg)
(A- 6)
Heavy oils: Modified Egbogah-.Jack's correlation
log' log(1l od + I) = 2.06492 - 0.0179, API - 0, 70226.log(Tg) (A - 7)
5-Gas-saturated oil viscosity
Extra-heavy oils: Modified Kartoatmodjo's correlation
653
TABLE 1: FLUIO PROPERTY CORRELATIONS
Fluid Property Correlation
BUbblepoint pressure Standing Lasater/'ll, Glaso
Kartoatmodjo 113/,Al_Marhoun1101
Solution GOR Standing, Vasquez-Beggs I'f/,
Kartoatmodjo,
Rollins-McCain-Creeger 1151
OFVFStanding, Vasquez-Beggs, Glaso,
Kartoatmodjo
Isothennal
compressibility
Dead-oil viscosity
Gas-saturated oil
viscosity
Undersaturated oil
viscosity
Vasquez-Beggs, Kartoatmodjo,
Labedi 1121, Petroslcy-Farsha<y1
71
Slotte flY/, Beggs-Robinson /l>!,
Glaso, Kartoatmodjo,
Egbogah-Jack!91, Labedi 116/
Chew-C01mally Beggs-Robinson,
Kartoatmodjo, Labedi /161
Vasquez-Beggs, Kartoatmodjo,
Majeed-Kattarl-Sahnan 1141,
Labedi 1161
TABLE 2: AGIP'S RANGE FORPVf PROPERTIES SAMPLE
Tank-oil gravity (0API) 6t022.3
Reservoir prl$$ure (psia) 1038.49 to 7411.54
Reservoir temperature (OF) 131.4 to 250.7
Solution GOR(sofYSTB) 17.21 to 640.25
Bubblepoint pressure (psia) 208.86 to 4021.96
Separator (psia) 14.5 to 752.2
SeparatQr temperature (OF) 59 to 177.8
Separator GOR(sofYSTB) 1I.l to $7$.62
Stock-tankGOR(set/STB) 4.39 to 311.41
Total sulface gas gravity (alr=l) 0.675 to 1.517
Separator gas gravity (alr=1) 0.623 to 1.517
Mole fraction ofCOz intotal gases (%mol.) 0.5 to 98.8
Mole fraction ofNz intotal gases (%mol.) Ot063.32
Mole fraction ofHZS intotal gases (%mol.) Oto 1.99
Oil formation volume fact9r (bbl/STB) 1.057to 1.362
Isothermal (psia-1x 10 6) 3.02 to 42.9
Dead-oil viscosity (cp) 7.7 to 1386.9
Gas-saturated oil viscosity (cp) 2.1 to 295.9
Undersaturated oil viscosity (cp) 2.4 to 354.6
654
0)
C1I
(]I
TABLE3: AUTIIOR'S DEFlNED RANGE FORBUBBLEPOINTPRESSURE, SOLUTION GOR, OFVF AND COMPRESSffiILITYCORRELATIONS
Standing Lasater Glas<> Kanoatmocljo Vasquez-Beggs Al-Mamoun Rollins-McCain Petrosky-Farsbad Labedi
Creeger
Tank-oil gravity (0API) 16.5 to 63.8 17.9 to 51.1 22.3 to 48.1 14.4to 58.95 15.3 to 59.5 19.4to 44.6 18to 53.5 16.3 to 45 32.2to 48
Bubb1epoint pressure (Psia) 130 to 7000 48 to 5780 165 to 7142 Oto6040 15 to 6055 130 to 3573 - 1574to 6523 520 to 6358
Reservoir temperature (OF) 100 to 258 82 to 272 80 to 280 75 to 320 170 (mean) 74to 240 - 114to 288 128to 306
OFVF at bubblepoint (bbl/STB) 1.024to 2.15
-
1.025 to 2.588 1.022 to 2.747 1.028to 2.226 1.032 to 1.997 - 1.1178 to 1.6229 1.088 to 2.92
Solution GOR(scf7STB) 20to 1425 3 to 2905 90 to 2637 Oto2890 Oto2199 26to 1602 - 217to 1406 -
Separator gas gravity (air-1)
- - - 0.4824to 1.668 0.511 to 1.351 - 0.579 to 1.124
- -
Total surface gas gravity (air-1) 0.59 to 0.95 0.574to 1.223 0.65 to 1.276
- - 0.752 to 1.367
- 0.5781 to 0.8519
-
Separator pressure (psia) 265 to 465 15to 60S 415 (mean) 100 60 to 565 - 29.7to 314.7
-
34.7to 789.7
Separator temperature (OF) 100 (mean) 34to 106 125 (mean) 38 tQ 294 76to 150
-
60 to 150
- 60 to 220
Reservoir pressure (psia) - - -
10 to 6000 141 to 9515 20to 3573 - 1700 to 10692
-
Stock-tank GOR(scf7STB) - - - - - - 4to220
- -
Separator GOR(scf7STB) - - - - - - 12 to 1742 - -
TABLE 4: A U f H O ~ S DEFlNED RANGE FORVISCOSITY CORRELATIONS
Beggs-Robinson Glas<> Kartoatmodjo Eg1>Ogah-Jack Labedi Chew-connany Vasquez-Beggs Majeed-Kattan
Salman
Tank-oil gravity (OAPI) 16to 58 20.1 to 48.1 14.4to 58.95 5to58 32.2to 48
-
15.3 to 59.5 15 to 51
Reservoir temperature (OF) 70 to 295 50to 300 80to 320 59 to 176 100 to 306 72to 292
- -
Reservoir pressure (psia) 15 to 5265 - 15 to 7171
- - - 141 to 9515 711 to 7112
Solution GOR(scf1STB) 20 to 2070
-
Ito 2044
- - 51 to 3544 9.3 to 2199 60 to 1334
Bubblepoint pressure (psia) - - - -
60 to 6358 132to 5645 498 to 4864
Dead-oil viscosity (cp)
-
0.616 to 39.1 0.5062 to 682 - 0.66 to 4.79 0.38 to 50
-
Gas-saturated oil viscosity(cp) - - 0.096 to 586 - 0.115 to 3.72 - 0.117to 148 0.093 to 20.5
TABLE5: EXPERIMENTALLY MEASUREDPVTDATA
18.0'
2l,21
5,8
2,1
4,;0j
8,8:
6,11
8.l!
2,61
295,91
90,3
171,41
2D8,S'
1Sl,8]
106.1:
2.40.0:
U8,O
lu,ol
116;31
85,6
106,S1


:1
19.11
81.7
8.31
19.8!
2l,3'
3S,3
2l,8,
23,3,
30,8
:1
65.4
69,4
69,9,
43,3'

Vol
0,00
0.10
0.001
0,00
0.001
0,001
,0.001
0.00
0;00,
O.OOi
0;00
0.001
0.00;
0.00
0,001
0.00,
0.00
0.001
0.
00
1.
0.00
0,00
0.001
O.OO!
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.001
0;00'
0,00
0.001
0.00
0,00
0.001
0,001
0,00.
0,00
0.001
0.00
1,82
0.10
0.41\
0,00'
0,00
0,001
0.00'
0;00
0,001
0.41,
0.00'
0,011
.
0,00.
1
'
0,32
0,00
0,91,
0.00
0;00
0.101
l.99
'0.00
0.001
YIi2s
0.65]
2,611
YII2
1,131
1,09
79.19
80,311
8031
82,38'
29.119
8U41
u.so
8,20
25.931
13,61'
47.01
14,561
64,56'
22,SO
4.89,
O.SO
66,49
13.86
13.751
66,01
'8l.64"
81.so
76,33'
19,59'
46,40'
55.119
G.4
1
1
0.48
2,90
49.741
0,53'
G.41
IG.951
0.60
11,51
so.041
31,83'
14.08
22,41,
12.511
=1
12,15,

8,11
98,88

38.78'
3l.3S
69.781
v_
59,0
104.0
90.0
133.
5
1
lS8.0,
::1'
,129,2
lS8.0'
1S8,O
158,0
118,81

115.
5
1
116,0
16,1
IS8,O
161,0
161.0'
161.0
122,
0
1
134.6,
18.8
116,6
86,01
122,0
IP4.0

100.4!
100.4
:':r
69.81
69.81
8M
69.81
10G,4
84,2
122,01
,5,2
1l,6
80.61
100,4'
15,6
69.8
104;0:
68,0,
100.4
86,0
0.6961
0;615:
l,429'
1,1
34
1
0;156
l.4'
0.7.
1.
4
151
1,491
1,334!
1,
410
1
l,419
1.
035
1
l,Z63,
l,29S
1,178
l,301l
1,344'
1,064
l,Z161
0.788
0.784!
1,188
l,S11:
'aY." T!
1,129
l,236]
0,81S
0.
810
1
0.735
1,2S3,

0.7161
0.1141
l,323:

1,206

1,292'
G.914
1,>\021
1.
412
1
-1,406'
1,411
1.059
1,>\111
1,.169
1,lilSl
1.0921
l,336'
. l,3411
1,333:
1.2S61
1,005
G.96:
1.06.
1,>\21:
4,
14,881
10,27'
7.44

18.
49
1
6;05!
44;
42
1
53,58,
6,111
7,71
37.64
33.371
36.36,
30,31
11,05
34,53
33.03'
6,
72
1
28,2D,
$,94'
4,39
:1
48,19)
5.11
U,05
14.491
12,60'
U,66
11,55
311,41
12,88
88;83
31,651
3O,;6Si
l3,94
49,41
U,66:
12,TlI
16,54
U,6O
3G.1S
l3,2l
93.441
10.44,
S2,S8
lS,SS
31.65:
l3,2l
7.so
42,36
96,05'
168.3)1
16,32
11,10:
Rs
3121,13
1209,63
3598,44
6Z12,98
1149.18:
3428,15
5391,14
4808,081
4132,66:
3563.63'
4143.14
SSl8.11
4494.79'
4708.001'

4883.so:
4996,63
4908.IS]
4808.
08
:
4895.10'
2850.04'
2916,151
2893.551
S139.23'
2916.15
28S0,
04
1
Z8S8.14
48U,88'
2916,7;
430S,18
4519.4S!
4410.61:
2552.
10
1
3684,02
3121,53,
3121.53'
3784.09
4281,58
3328,61
1lS3,01
741l,S41
4813,34:
1411.54
104.'.49 .1
1806.41
6SS1,2j;!
1792,26
1593.
12
1
187l',S4
1649.98:
721l.39
1934;4O
S305,5!i'
4238,01!
6921.11
187l',S4
ID7.421
1806.
41
1
1149.41
6856,04
Pr
I.-.
141.
165;2
Z10,2

Z03,9:
165;2
215,
6
1
ZI0,2,
ZlS.6'
Z12,1
Zl'7.4
=0
Zlo.l
ZI'.4
154.8
161 .0

154.81
153.1
ZI0,2]

208,0:
=.6'
Z11,6
183.ZI


201.7
1
214.01
203;0'
13l,4I'
ZI1,3
188,1
140.0'
250"1
194.0
2.44.4
163.4,
211.4
165,2:
l.Sll,0!
154.4
112,4
2.40.8,
171.8,
118.71
161.0:
231,81
17.G.6
2.44.0
163,41
lSO.8:
231,8:

19G,4,
188;81
179,6
134.1
6,
6,3]
6;51
7,3
7,5.
1,91
1,9:
8,0:
8,0
8.31

8.9
9.01
9;61
10.0,
10.5
1
IG.9
11,0
Il,O!


12,4
12,6
12,8]

14,6
14,9,
15,1,
21.3:
2l,3'
22,0
API
1
Z
3
4
5
6
1
11
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
11
18
19
2D
21
22
23
2.4
25
Z6
Z1
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
3S
39
40
41
4Z
43
44
45
46
41
48
49
SO
51
52
53
54
55
56
51
58
59
60
61
6Z
63
iPVT
0)
01
0)
0>
01
.......
TABLE 6: BESTRESULTS OFSTATISTICALANAllSYS PERFORMEDONAGIP'S SAMPLES
(AAE =Average AbSolute Error, %; SD = StandardDeviation)
APIRange Bubbleooint pressure SolutionGOR OFVF Isothemla1
..
Author Standing Standing Glaso Vasquez-Beggs
<=lO
O
API AAE 9.1 13.7 1.3 38.7
SD 9.8 17.9 1.2 21.9
Author Standing Vasquez-Beggs Vasquez-Beggs Vasquez-Beggs
10 < API <= 22.3 AAE 15.1 25.7 1.4 25.5
SD 13.9 45.9 1.1 19.2
Dead-oil viscositv Gas-saturated oil viscosi1rv Undersaturated oil viscositv
Author Egbogah-Jack. Kartoatmodjo Labedi
<=10
o
API AAE 30.3 14.7 12.3
SD 24.4 13.0 7.8
Author Egbogah-Jack. Kartoatmodjo Kartoatmodjo
10<API <=223 AAE 41.8 16.1 10.1
SD 24.9 16.5 10.5
TABLE 7 : STATISTICALANAIlSYS PERFORMEDONMODIFIED CORRELATIONS
(AAE=AvenI2e Absolute Error,%; SD=StandardDeviatiOD, M = modified)
APlRange Bubbleooint pressure SolutionGOR OFVF Isothemml
..
Author Standing M-Standing not investigated M-Vasquez-Beggs
<=10
O
API AAE 9.1 6.5 8.5
SD 9.8 4.5 5.0
Author M-Standing M-Vasquez-Beggs not investigated M-Vasquez-Beggs
10 < API <=22.3 AAE 10.2 17.0 15.6
SD 8.1 11.3 10.7
Dead-oil viscositY Gas-saturated oil viscosi1rv Undersatnratedoil viscositv
Author M-Egbogah-Jack. M-Kartoatmodjo M-Labedi
<=10
o
API AAE 17.4 12.6 4.0
SD 8.9 10.0 3.4
Author M-Egbogah-Jack. M-Kartoatmodjo M-Kartoatmodjo
10 <oAPI <=22.3 AAE 37.8 ll.8 6.0
SD 21.9 9.9 7.2
TABLE8 : EXPERIMENTALLY MEASURIDDATAIIORVlSCOSITY INVESTIGATION
(. =sample fi'om literature)
PVTRepori API Tr("J!) Pr(psla) Rs (sdISTB) Pb(psla) Vol
I 7.1 212,0 4911,05 82.17 554.05 278.5 124,7 228.3
2 7,5 203,0 4565.86 24,26 121,83 451,5 360.1
3 8.2 218,7 4876.24 144.02 796,27 203,5 77,3 132.7
4 8,2 218.7 4876,24 786.70 4993,73 222,4 20,1 21.0
5 9,0 117.5 2671.64 208.75 2364,15 3340,0 528.0
6 10.2 211.1 4715,25 189,87 1934.83 125.8 41,7 75.0
7 10,5 154,8 2850.04 345.55 2574.46 99.0 16,0 16,4
8 10,6 212,0 4766.01 91.66 781,77 130,6 78,9 137.0
9 10,6 212.0 4766.01 725.08 4993,73 148,8 9,3 10,7
10 11,2 154,8 2850,04 376.92 2858,74 100.2 15,0 15.0
11 !l.3 210,2 4589.07 202,09 2319,19 111.7 42.0 64.0
12 11.3 154,8 2850.04 370.76 2475,83 110,0 17,2 18,0
13 12.3 204,8 4509,29 227.63 2261,17 105,6 37,7 50,0
14 12,6 208,0 4805,18 736.57 4993,73 103.1 7,3 7,4
15 13,0 212,0 4993,73 127,42 1151.62 59.3 30,2 54.0
16 13,0 212,0 4993,73 300,52 2858.74 60.6 . .l7,4 23.0
17 13,0 212.0 4993;73 479,63 4993,73 57,4 11.9 11.9
18 13.0 212,0 4993,73 493,45 2858.74 75,0 17.0 22,9
19 13,0 212,0 4993,73 788,04 4993,73 75,3 7.2 7,2
20 13.6 215,4 4281,58 208,75 1650,56 53,4 19,6 .25,8
21 14.8 211,3 4281;58 228,41 2261,17 36,9 16,2 24,5
22 14.8 211,3 4281.58 292,31 2858,74 41,3 13,6 16,1
23 14,8 21l,3 4281,58 315.90 2858,74 40,0 10,5 12,2
24 14,8 2!l,3 4281,58 419.00 2858,74 32,7 9.1 15,6
25 14,8 2U,3 4281,58 444.10 4281,58 37.3 9,6 9.6
26 14,8 211,3 4281,58 465.64 4281,58 39,8 8,1 8,1
27 14,8 21l,3 4281,58 753,17 4281,58 40.9 5,2 5.2
28 15,0 211.3 4281,58 463,75 4281,58 14,2 14,2
29* 15,0 194.0 4978,21 195,59 71'1,13 4,7 7.1
30 15.1 207,5 4281,58 182,10 1763,69 56.3 21,8 30,8
31 15.1 207,3 4281,58 191,98 1834,76 55.6 18,9 25,5
32 16,0 21l,3 4281,58 189,82 1778,19 37,0 15,5 20.6
33 16,0 211,3 4281.58 215,91 1991,40 38.6 13,8 18,3
34 .16,4 212,0 4808,08 143,68 1038,49 24.5 12,7 19.0
35 17;8 193.1 3723,18 73,62 683,14 70.3 40,0 60.3
36* 17,9 180.0 4978;21 260,11 2417.96 3,4 4,4
37* 18,0 100.0 6400,62 247,23 2450.02 20,5 25,4
38* 18,2 170.1 4978,21 290,14 68,29 2,6 3.6
39 19,2 118,0 1182,08 109,93 797.72 273,0 80,6 86.6
40 19,0 149.0 1330.02 113,59 668,63 54,5 23,3 .25.0
41 19,0 217,4 6557,26 152,07 725,20 15,9 8,0 16.1
42 19,0 163,4 1807,20 229,46 1393.83 52.7 13,7 15,6
43 19,0 163,4 1807,20 256,44 1807,20 52,7 11,7 11,7
44 19,6 195,8 3375,08 198,31 1012,38 20,S 7,6 9,6
45* 20,0 180,0 5333,85 197,81 1066,77 5,2 7,7
46* 21.1 190,0 4978,21 437,10 2062,47 2,0 2,5
47 21,3 179,6 6272,98 252,56 6272,98 12.9 7,8 7.8
48 21.3 179,6 6272,98 702,70 2104,53 16,1 2,5 3,6
49 21,3 179,6 6272,98 832,06 6272.98 '.12,8 2,2 2,2
SO 21,7 202,5 4000,20 189,21 960,16 12,1 4.1 5,4
51* 21,7 170,1 5689,48 378,64 3747,83 1.7 2.1
52 21;8 201,0 3450,50 185,88 918,10 12,0 5.1 6.6
53* 21,8 177,8 4978,21 521,38 3136,34
\.3
1,5
54* 22,0 181,0 4978,21 412,51 1422.41 1.7 2,3
55* 22,0 193.8 4978,21 494,45 2560,25 1,9 2,3
TA13LE 9 : Statisticol RQsults ofViscosity Investigation
(ME = Avcralle Abs.Error,% SO = Stand. Oev., M= Modified)
APIRonlle Vod Vol Vo
Author M-Egbogah M-Kartoalm. M-Labedi
<= 10 ME 26,4 19,8 5,9
SO 17,1 22,3 1,3
Author M-Egbogah M-Kartoalm. M-I<artoolm.
10 - 22.3 ME 35,4 20,5 5,7
SO 18,2 13,5 7
658
-
4000
-
-- -
-
-
..
..
..
..
-
-..
1000
..
0.JL..---1-----I----+----l-----!
o
..
1000
Fig.!: Bubblepoint pressure, best correlations from literature Fig. 2: Bubblepoint pressure, present work
730,-----------------------;( 730,----------------------Jf
.lOll .lOll
I I
I
"
I
.
" ..
250 250
."
730
l\I!ASUlID (1.1181'8)
730
Fig. 3: Solution GOR, best correlations from literature Fig. 4: Solution GOR, present work
\l 10
MUSUlID(I",I'IA"")
o.JL..------+--------I--------l
o
13,----------------------.,(
10
MYABl,JIlID(1",... 11 &t,)
13,.---------------------.,(
! 10
r
o
~
"
~ 1
I I
I

t
Fig. S: Isothermal compressibility, best correlations from literature
659
Fig. 6: Isothennal compressibility, present work
100 100
i i
I

I
10 .0

1000 100 10
.000,.-------,-------r------'71
1000 100 10
I
I
.ooo-r-------,--------,-------,t
Fig. 7: Dead-oil viscosity, best correlations from literature Fig 8: Dead-oil viscosity, present work
.000 100 10
10 +------**'--.------1-------1
looo-r-------,-------,------'71
I
1000 '00 10
10+-_- -df-L-,..,.-- __;


I
Fig. 9: Gas-saturated oil Viscosity, best correlations from literature Fig. 10: Gas-saturated oil viscosity, present work
'00 100
i i
I I
10 10
1000 100 .0
1000 -r-'----I----,-------,------71
'000 100 '0
.ooo,------..,..------.......
Fig. 11: Undersaturated oil viscosity, best correlations froni literature
660
Fig. 12: undersaturated oil viscosity; presentwork
1000
1000,.-------,-------,-------7f
1,4 1,3
1,4
( I ~


Li

I
10
~ I
MrABUlDl lWJ$11l) MrMUlDl,)
Fig. 13: Bubblepoint OFVF, best correlations from literature Fig. 14: Gas-saturated oil viscosity, best correlations
from literature (input dead-oil Viscosity calculated)
10-22.3
API
Ran ge
< 10
Standing
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
Average absolute error
Fig. 15 Bubblepoint pressure correlation: comparlsonofbest results
A PI
Range
10-22.3
< 10
V asquoz-B oggs
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Average absolute error
Fig. 16 Solution OORcorrelation: comparison ofbest results
API
Range
10-22.3
<: 10
V asquoz-B eggs
Vasquoz-Boggs
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Average absolute error
Fig. 17 Isothermal compressibility correlation: comparison ofbest results
661
API
Ran ge
10-22.3
< 10
o 10 20 30 40
Bgbogahlao!<
50
API
R aoge
10-22.3
< 10
Av'e .. age absolute e .... o ..
Fig. 18 Dead"OjJ viscosity correlation: comparison ofbest results
K artoatm odjo
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
A PI
Range
10-22.3
< 10
Ave .. age absolute e .... o ..
Fig. 19 Oas-saturated oil viscosif,y correlation: comparison ofbest results
Lobedl
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
AVeJ'jlge absolute e .... o ..
Fig. 20 Undersaturated oil viscosity correlation: comparison ofbest results
662

Вам также может понравиться